where is the cemetery at alfoldean

8/3/2019 Where is the Cemetery at Alfoldean

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/where-is-the-cemetery-at-alfoldean 1/9

Where is the cemetery at Alfoldean?

The site at Alfoldean consists primarily of a large Romano-British mansio and

staging-post complex within a rectangular enclosure (clearly visible as a crop-mark

and as an earthwork), straddling Stane Street, a major artery from Noviomagus

(Chichester) to Londinium (London), and associated strip-settlement, situated about

6km west of Horsham within the parish of Slinfold in West Sussex (centred on NGR511730 133050), occupying two fields situated either side of the modern A29 directly

south of, and neatly snuggled into a large meander of the River Arun. The

surrounding land slopes down to the flood plain of the river from all directions, with

the highest area of the site approximately 31 metres aOD, with underlying geology of

alluvial silt overlying Arun 3rd and 4th gravel terraces, which in turn overlies clay

and sandstone (BGS 1972).

Alfoldean location. Plan taken from SAC Vol 138 (2000), p76. Michael Lule et al..

The mansio and enclosure is considered to be of national importance and has

been designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument (S.A.M. WS222).



Aerial Photograph of site taken by RAF 1946.

The site was first discovered in 1775, and further investigated briefly between

1809-10 during road restoration. Sporadic digging was then carried out during the

1840s by a Mr Briggs, but nothing was recorded at that time. A short report was

prepared for SAC in 1859 by Martin (SAC Vol XI, 144) and in 1912 a tesselated

pavement was discovered during ploughing (Belloc, 1913, 250), which was lifted and

reset into the lawn of Hill House, nearby; It was not until 1922-23 (SAC vol 64, 81-

104, 1923, and Vol 65 112-157, 1924) and 1934-5 (SAC vol 76, 183-192) that

systematic excavations were carried out on the site by S Winbolt; and then not again

until October 2005 by Wessex Archaeology (Report 59473.01 Apr 2006); with

intermittent work being carried out in the 1980s and 1990s by Michael Luke and

others (SAC 138, 75-101, 2000).

Winbolt was the first to postulate that accompanying the mansio, was the

possibility of a strip settlement, and this was confirmed by the use of fieldwalking

techniques, earthwork surveys, and aerial photograph analysis during the 1980s by

Michael Luke and Judie English, in the 1990s by Elizabeth Elliott, and from 1999

onwards by myself. The conclusions being drawn that the mansio was part of a much

larger settlement which was not included within the S.A.M.

Michael Luke records the site as a chain of deliberately planted settlementsalong Stane Street, extending from the enclosure and covering an area of some 9

hectares. During 1986, Michael Luke recorded the section of a large JCB trench dug

along the roadside verge through the middle of the site, and during 1998 a watching

brief was undertaken by John Mills of WSCC during the construction of a lay-by

along the A29, both of whom identified features associated with Romano-British

occupation. The fields are regularly ploughed, and dense pottery scatters are still

evident, extending several hundred metres south of the enclosure.



In 2005 a geophysical survey was conducted by GSB Prospection Ltd (Report

2005/70), in the two fields and this was successful in not only pinpointing the general

footprint of the mansio building but also in identifying an extensive complex of other

archaeological features. Field systems, trackways, settlement and workshop type

activity has been mapped over an area in excess of 3 hectares outside the enclosure,

but due to time constraints, it was not possible to determine the limits. However, what

has become evident is that an extensive settlement extends southwards for at least 300metres south of the enclosure, within which are several double-ditched anomalies

presumably indicating trackways running both N-S and E-W, connecting paddocks,

small fields and presumably areas of houses/workshops. There is also the possibility

of a large number of pits of uncertain function, excavation of which to determine the

nature of the activity is yet to be undertaken. The concentration of these pits is much

greater closer to the road than in the east though it is possible that the settlement or

related agriculture extends right down to the river in this direction.

Geophysical analysis of the western field produced results of a different

character to the anomalies inside the enclosure in the eastern field, possibly as a result

of fewer disturbances to the archaeology, but nevertheless still suggesting the

presence of dense occupation. Unfortunately, for the remainder of the site southwards,outside the enclosure, far fewer anomalies of archaeological interest, in particular,

linear ditch anomalies, were revealed, although large pits close to the western flanks

of Stane Street were present indicating unenclosed workshops or small-scale

industrial activity along the road, taking advantage of the trade that the mansio

attracted. The conclusion reached, was that the focus of the settlement appeared to lie

on the eastern side of the Roman road. I have to say however, based solely on the

geophysics and the work of Wessex archaeology, this is of course true, but when

combined with the evidence from the JCB trench and fieldwalking it clearly is not.

The conclusions also drawn from the 2005 excavations were summed up by

Wessex Archaeology in the statement “the focus of activity on the site was from the

later 1st century into the 3rd century AD, with sporadic later activity, broadly

confirming the results of previous fieldwork on the site.” Although basically true, it

has to be remembered that most of the investigations were undertaken in the vicinity

of the mansio enclosure and their dating evidence is therefore applicable to this area

and not necessarily the rest of the roadside settlement.

What we know, therefore, is that we have a large roadside settlement, upwards

of about 8 ha (approx 20 acres), occupied continuously for about 250 years+, (from

the 1st century to mid 3rd century AD), and possibly longer.

Whilst attending the 2005 excavations, I was in conversation with Judie

English upon this very subject, when she suddenly asked, “Where did they plant thedead ones?” An entirely reasonable question, and one that has occupied my mind ever

since.

It is often said that Roman life expectancy at birth was between 22 to 25 years

(Tim G. Parkin, Demography and Roman Society 1992), but that if you got through

the dangerous infant and toddler years you could expect to live into your fifties, so the

settlement may well have had a dense population of at least 15 successive generations.

So, what size would the cemetery be, and where was it located?



Plan of site with geophysics results superimposed. Courtesy Michael Luke 2006.

In determining the location of the Cemetery one has to first consider the legal,

social, and spiritual aspects for such a site.

It has to be remembered that during the first two centuries AD, cremation was

the preferred method of burial, the population being pagan, and it was not until well

into the second century that inhumation became increasingly popular, commencing

during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138). It is not known whether this

change came about because of spiritual factors or for other reasons, but nevertheless,

both types of burial continued side by side for a further 200 years when, in the early

3rd century, cremation ceased. After the elevation of Constantine to the purple ( AD

307-337), he permitted, encouraged and personally converted to Christianity, and inAD 311 he issued the Edict of Serdica which essentially converted the entire Roman

Empire from a pagan to a Christian one. Following the rise of Christianity,

inhumation became the norm because the belief that resurrection was impossible after

cremation.

Whether burial be performed by either method, we can immediately deducewhere the cemetery is not, and that is within the settlement precincts themselves. The

Lex Duodecim Tabularum or more simply the Law of the 12 Tables, the ancient



legislation that stood at the foundation of Roman law and which formed the

centrepiece of the constitution of the Roman Rebublic (and later the Empire), and the

core of mos maiorum, strictly proscribed against such a thing. Table X, law 1, clearly

stated hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito, which translated, stated

categorically, “No dead man may be cremated nor buried in the city.” (Cicero, De

legibus 2, 23) The body of the deceased therefore had to be conveyed, in procession,

to a burial place outside the city where it would be cremated.

Jock Macdonald, in “Pagan Religious and Burial Practices in Roman

Britain” observed that there were 3 main traditions of religious experience to be

found in Britain during the Roman occupation – The Celtic, the Roman, and the

Oriental. All religions, especially the Pagan ones, were capable of assimilating

beliefs, rites and practices from each other, and these 3 beliefs probably intermingled

and modified each other over the course of years in the ordinary way. Of the three

traditions, clearly the Roman occupies the pivotal position, both as the official

tradition of the conquering legions and as the intermediary between the other two,

There was a range of views for example, concerning the existence of an afterlife. Such

feelings changed with time, but whatever thoughts there were, one thing remained

central to the Roman way of life was respect for the ancestor, and particularly thebody of the deceased. The soul, they thought, could find rest only when the body had

been duly laid in the grave. Thus arose an elaborate funeral ceremony, funus. The law

even decreed as to how this ceremony had to be conducted, what colour certain

mourners had to wear, and even instructions down to how many flautists had to be

present!! Once at the cemetery site, the body was cremated at a bustum – it is

unlikely, considering the size of Alfoldean, that the settlement would have possessed

an ustrinum or crematorium. The ashes were then gathered together by the next of kin

and placed into an urn made of wood, terracotta, or glass, and then buried – although

the ashes of the poor were placed directly into the soil and covered with terracotta

tiles or the upper portion of an amphora.

The dead, it was thought, were not entirely cut off from the living, and thus

had to be regularly appeased and honoured as though they were still living.

Particularly among the Celts – and let us remember that the local native population

were just that, Romanised Celts, members of the Regnii tribe - there was a generally

accepted view of an afterlife. Many felt that the dead, living in their tombs, could

influence the fortunes of the living in vague, undefined ways. Therefore, just to be

safe, gifts and offerings were made to the deceased. Naturally then, the cemetery

would become an important part of the landscape, and such places could become

huge, with mausoleoms, tombs, etc, such as those along the Appian Way, or the so

called “street of tombs” outside Pompeii. There were other burial places near the

cities, of course, less conspicuous and less expensive, and on the farms, country

estates, and minor settlements like Alfoldean, provision was made for persons of humbler station. Whatever size or status the cemetery be, however, the principle

always remained the same in that it would be a sacred area where descendants would

regularly visit their ancestors pour libations upon the graves and hold celebrations in

honour of the deceased.

To find the cemetery therefore, we have to look outside the settlement. The

usual practice was to place the cemetery along the main road to make a “statement”



and would as such be a prominent part of the landscape. But where can we say can be

called outside the settlement?

What we first have to decide is where that demarkation line would have been

drawn at Alfoldean. Wessex Archaeology, on the 2005 excavation, presumed that the

earthworks of the mansio enclosure was that line, and therefore naturally accepted

Miles Russell’s “circularity” just outside the enclosure, to be possibly a mausoleum.However, upon further excavation the feature was reinterpreted as a roundhouse with

hearth, - dated to the 3rd century by the discovery of a broken but almost complete

New Forest indented beaker. However, in the light of a further discovery, their first

thoughts that the enclosure was the demarkation line appeared to be correct, in that

the almost intact but crushed 3rd century beaker was found to be accompanied by a

large shard of glass, identified as the base of a large square bottle from the Rhineland

– possibly Cologne, 2nd century AD – which vessels were known to have been used

as cinerary urns to take a cremation.

Now, this is just the point. A bottle dated to the 2nd century is from a time by

which the settlement would have been well established. Therefore, in my opinion the

demarkation line must have been further afield, as by this time at least 7 generationsmust have lived and died on the site since the mansio complex was built. The fact that

a single cremation has been found within the settlement itself would not have been at

all unusual. Although burials had to take place outside the town, there were

exceptions in the case of young children (aged less than 40 days) who were often

buried near their homes. This may well have been one such burial.

So back to the main thrust of my argument. Where was the cemetery?

For the moment, I rule out a siting towards the East of the settlement. I admit

that the width of the trackways revealed by geophysics in the Eastern field, and which

conjoin and appear to head in an easterly direction, may well be of sufficient size to

sustain such funeral processions, and that the cemetery may be across a bridge over

the Arun and lie in the fields beyond. However, I tend towards the view that the

terrain would detract from the “statement” effect necessary for the spiritual life of the

community, and would be sufficiently far away from Stane Street as not to be noticed

by travellers along it.

The same view I would hold for a western siting of the cemetery, - again the

desired impact would be greatly diminished the further away from the main road it

lay. However, cemeteries usually lay on a road for just such a reason and we may well

once have had such a road on an E-W alignment.

A triple ditch linear anomaly identified as a cropmark by Michael Luke in1981, might conceivably be interpreted as just such a road with roadside ditch, and

therefore wide enough for funeral processions. This cropmark showed up as three

parallel linear lines, apparently aligned west to east commencing just south-west of

the enclosure. In 1982, Michael Luke believed that this was a Roman Road, quoting

Mr Hampton, photographer for the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments, being

in agreement. By explanation, Michael Luke observed that the third ditch would have

been necessary to obtain material to raise the road above the flood plain (E Walddlove

A Roman Road in the Vale of Clwyd 1979, 22-23). If the line of the anomaly were to



be extended on the OS map of Roman Britain, it would be found to pass by

Chiddingfold Roman Villa and then by the Alice Holt Potteries before joining a

known road to Neatham on the Chichester-Silchester road. Another thought, Michael

Luke postulated, was that it may perhaps be a local road to Kiln Copse in nearby

Roman Woods (TQ 110 300) where a Roman building may have existed. Such a road

would probably have started north of the river to avoid the need for a separate bridge

(SAC Newsletter 37, Aug 1982. 285).

However, both of these interpretations have since been discounted by Michael

Luke. In his 1986 Report, he re-evaluated the anomaly observing that “The width

between the south ditch and the middle ditch (ignoring the dark green area) would be

adequate for a road, but if the dark green area is genuine (as it appears to be) would

only be 2 m. wide which is only wide enough for a path. The situation where 3 ditches

are associated with a road…” see reference to Waddlelove above. “…needed an

extra ditch to extract more material for an extra large agger where it passed through

marshland. At Alfoldean this situation is not comparable since the ditches are in an

area which is well above flooding. Assuming this feature to be a road it might be

expected to have some kind of metalling between the southern and middle which

might show as a light cropmark but there was no sign of this…” He now believes thatassuming the 3 ditches are of the same date, they are more likely to represent a

boundary of some kind. A triple ditch is unlikely to be needed to keep in animals, but

be either defensive or of status value. If it were to serve as a boundary it would seem

to be unnecessary since it is quite close to the river, which if it was like today, would

have served as a good boundary.

Triple ditch linear cropmark. Photo 1981 by Mike Luke.

If ,therefore, there were no E-W road, then there would be no facility for the

funeral procession etc, and therefore likely to be unsuitable for a cemetery site. This

then, leaves either to the north or to the south along Stane Street itself.



Immediately north of the mansio, Stane Street crosses a bridge to traverse the

flood-plain and water meadows, and then follows the rising terrain to enter dense

woodland now known as Plattershall Copse (locally, Roman Woods). The present

A29 ends abruptly at a roundabout on the Horsham-Guildford road (A281) called

Roman Gate Roundabout, but the line of the original Stane Street may still be

followed through the woods and can be traced as a series of aggars and ditches, theentire stretch of which is considered to be of national importance and has been

designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument (S.A.M. WS223).

Surviving aggar of Stane Street in Roman Woods, Rowhook. Photo July 2000

Alex Vincent, Roman Roads of Sussex, Middleton Press. ISBN 1901706486.

Let us first examine the possibility that the cemetery lies somewhere in the

flood-plain, between the Arun bridge and the rising ground. It is unlikely for two

possible reasons. Firstly, as this area has always been liable to regular flooding there

is no reason to suppose this did not also regularly occur in Roman times. Indeed, the

water table would undoubtedly have been higher than today so the risk of floodingcould well have been greater. This regular occurrence would have had an impact on

hygiene, as there would be the risk of putrefaction residues contaminating the river,

and therefore a danger to the settlement itself which must have relied heavily upon the

River Arun for its water supply.



River Arun in flood. Winter 1985. photo Michael Luke.

A second consideration, whether inhumation or cremation, would once again

be the spiritual factor in that if the ancestors were to be respected as though they were

still living, their “houses” would not be built in a location that the living would

naturally avoid themselves. No one would want to risk being regularly flooded out, so

why should the ancestors be any different? No, if the cemetery were to be situated to

the north, it would be on higher ground. The hillside overlooking the floodplain,

southwards facing, would be an ideal location – somewhere one would naturally wish

to live, and certainally a “statement” to passers-by. However, this would work only if

the hillside were open country, which today it is not, being a mixture of open fieldsand dense mixed deciduous woodland. What the nature of the vegetation would have

been in Roman times would be the subject of speculation, but I suspect there would

have been rather more woodland than today, and would therefore obcure the visual

effect.

This then leaves the south of the settlement. I believe that the limits of the

settlement, yet to be proven, lie somewhere between the southernmost end of field A,

and the rising ground on the top of which sits Hill House. If this proves to be the case,

then the cemetery must be south of this line somewhere, situated overlooking the

road.

One clue, probably circumstantial but not to be ignored, is a fieldname Pot

Field, associated with the 1843 Tithe map. (The field lies centred on NGR 5115

1320). Could this possibly refer to an urn-field, or just merely refer to a field

belonging to a Mr Pott? Intriguing nevertheless and worthy of further investigation.

The Jury is still out, but I am working on the case.

Richard Symonds.

where is the cemetery at alfoldean

Documents